The reason I would never walk is because I would be inconsistent. Usually I do feel the urge to walk when I know I hit the ball or something like that, but put me in a position when my team needs one run to win and there's 9 wickets down... well I wouldn't walk. In that case, like you said I'd be a hypocrite to walk at one time and not another.

Plus batsmen get many shoddy decisions against them through 'bull' appeals by bowlers which go their way. May as well be a two way street.

"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

I noticed something in the NZ v Bangladesh game, although it was hard to tell, Fleming actually walked from the crease before looking at the umpire. Good sportsmanship, the main thing is getting the correct decision in the end.

The one man who has always walked and yet, never seems to get all this publicity like some of the Aussies and Indians do, is Brian Lara.

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

I think batsmen should walk if they know they have nicked it. But if we really want to make the umpires job easier, it is much more important for the bowler and the fielders not to pressurise the umpire if and when they KNOW the batsman to be not out. This is the bigger problem for the umpires today .

The fact that there are those , and so many it seems, who feel batsmen should not walk, is a sign of the times. After all we do have people who openly, at least in our part of the world, talk against paying taxes against voting for a candidate in an election because he is too good to be a successful politician, of justifying police and buraucratic corruption (and worse) on the grounds of their not getting adequate salaries and so on !!

The arguments offered about it evening out in the end was originally offered not to justify not walking but to shut up the cribbers who complained of mistakes in umpiring.

Mistakes even out in the sense that if there are mistakes against India today, there will be mistakes that will benefit them tomorrow. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE RIGHT NOR DOES THIS MAKE ATTEMPT BY PLAYERS OR AUTHORITIES TO MINIMISE THE MISTAKES MISLPACED !!

No two mistakes can cancel each other out. They just add up !! Five mistakes against each team is ten mistakes and not zero.

Secondly, the impact of two mistakes can not be equated , even if they are in the same game.

Walking and not appealing unless you think you are right is what the players can do to help. The authorities have to think of what THEY can do in addition, technology or whatever.

Personally, if a batsman genuinely believes he is out then I believe walking is something they should do irrespective of the umpires decision. A recently case was Kasprowicz who walked, despite the umpire who was in the process of giving him not out

However, with that said the issue to consistency needs to be raised. If your team is 3/382 with a lead of 100 and you think you have nicked an edge to the keeper then you would be more inclined to walk than if your team was 5/120 and chasing a large total!

Also, if as captain you remain at the crease knowing full well you got an edge you can have your position devalued if your vice-captain or another player walks under the very same circumstances.

In the end, personal decision aside I have to agree with Ricky Ponting who recently said that the players are there to play and the umpires are there to umpire. Neither is perfect but the umpires decision should be accepted as law whilst the players should simply concentrate on playing the game.

There is no end to what can be justified by 'take where you can get them'
- a Jacob breaking the stumps with a hand that never had the ball but the umpire didnt know
- A footballing legend scoring with his arm and accepting the goal awarded because the refree did not know

If a football player can be given the yellow card for shamming an injury why should a cricketer be allowed to not just sham but be supported by saying 'take those breaks where you can get them'.

But as I said, its a sign of the times. Gilchrist said the other day that he was amazed that except for the umpires and two senior cricketers no one came and congratulated him on his walking.

But as I said, its a sign of the times. Gilchrist said the other day that he was amazed that except for the umpires and two senior cricketers no one came and congratulated him on his walking.

With everything that has been said still difficult to come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone.

As an umpire I may feel agrieved that players are not willing to accept my verdict.

As a player I may feel under pressure to put honesty an integrity infront of a career which has taken a long time to establish and can end after a few bad performances.

You can bring technology into the equation. Cricket is a sport where things can happen quickly. To expect an umpire to consistently hear a faint nick in a loud stadium or to precisely judge when the bat touches the crease is sometimes expecting too much.

Traditionalists might say that, that is part of the game but if you want to totally (or nearly totally) eliminate human error from the game then greater reliance needs to be placed on technology to compliment the umpires out on the field.

As an umpire I may feel agrieved that players are not willing to accept my verdict.

.

Every umpire has come out in FAVOUR of walking even if it is different from the umpires decision including the two who stood in the second test. They do not think a player walking if he thinks it is out is dissent. They say, they MUST walk and make the umpires job easier.

I cant see anyone at this time in the game walking at every instance, not even Gilchrist. Its all well and good to be idealistic about morals and whatnot, but the real test is consistancy. Its going to be interesting to see what these players do in different circumstances.